> > Fine, so you'd like us to implement something that a number of us
> > consider to be inappropriate because OpenBSD took a decision 6
> > months ago to do it that way? And, if we don't use the OpenBSD
> > method, because we didn't get to voice our opinions on the matter,
> > the NetBSD packages people will be creating gratuitous differences?
>
> <Fallacy detected>
>
> You are completely FREE to monitor our mailing-lists, and source-changes
> archives, and cvs repository.
>
> How do you think I know about YOUR additions to bsd.pkg.mk ?
>
> You can hardly hold me responsible for you not looking at our mailing-lists,
> and not barging in six months ago.
> You didn't voice your opinion on the matter. You were perfectly able to do
> THAT when we implemented that feature six months ago.
Oh, now it's *my* fault for not telling OpenBSD what to do 6 months
ago?
Mea culpa. However, I have better things to do with my time than
monitor OpenBSD mailing lists - there's a vast amount of coastal
erosion which I'm in danger of missing, for example.
To get back to the argument that you used previously, that of the
vast number of users who will have immense trouble differentiating
between the two systems - it has nothing to do with the users, rather
everything to do with the people who commit the package Makefile to
the cvs repository.
I feel it would be quite wrong to implement a change to the NetBSD
packages collection in order to be consistent with a decision taken
by OpenBSD 6 months ago, from which you seem to be distancing
yourself.